1) Call your college tech support line2) Fix the problem3) Find the nearest beer pong game4) Hook up with an easy girl5) "Wrap that rascal"6) Sleep off your drunken stupor7) Take a shower Go to class9) Do your homework/studying10) Go to step 3

In my dorm room, the college firewall prevents me from connecting to Limewire. Is there any way to bypass this firewall, or is there a P2P program that would do that for me?

Peace.

The only easy and sure way is to use Tor, but it will slow things down so much it will be like trying to download on dialup. Another possibility, with bit torrent anyway, haven't used limewire, is to change the port you're sharing through, often they'll just block certain ports used for filesharing, try rerouting the traffic through 80 (http), 20 (ftp data), 21 (ftp control), 22 (ssh), 23 (telnet), or 25 (smtp)...There may be other ports that may work as well, depending on the firewall, but those are the ones I generally used, of course this all depends on the exact nature of your firewall. There are several other ways to hack the firewall as well, but you should have a better grasp of that than I, seeing how you're the one behind the firewall and capable of playing with it to find the vulnerabilities (or, at least, hook up with some computer science friends, learn to exploit vulnerabilities together...but use common sense, dont get caught).

Alternatively, you could pay $30 a month to get your own internet connection.

Oh, and working on breaking through a firewall is MUCH more fun if copious amounts of alcohol is involved...Take SmoT's advice.

It's not stealing, the original owner still has their original copy, you just have a copy, which is why it's called copying. Copyright violation is not theft...rather it is a great and humanitarian virtue.

In my dorm room, the college firewall prevents me from connecting to Limewire. Is there any way to bypass this firewall, or is there a P2P program that would do that for me?

Download Soulseek, ideally with the Linux client (Nicotine+). Doesn't require open ports, though if you have them it will work faster. If you want films, the best place is Bittorrent, which also works behind a firewall, though it benefits from open ports.

The only easy and sure way is to use Tor, but it will slow things down so much it will be like trying to download on dialup. Another possibility, with bit torrent anyway, haven't used limewire, is to change the port you're sharing through, often they'll just block certain ports used for filesharing, try rerouting the traffic through 80 (http), 20 (ftp data), 21 (ftp control), 22 (ssh), 23 (telnet), or 25 (smtp

If I were to take those steps, how likely is it that the admin would notice?

It's not stealing, the original owner still has their original copy, you just have a copy, which is why it's called copying. Copyright violation is not theft...rather it is a great and humanitarian virtue.

I am of the persuasion that filesharing should be considered under "fair use" rather than theft.

Copyright is a recent notion promulgated only about 300 years ago. For the majority of the Christian era, if you told people that copying a work of art was "stealing", they'd think you a madman.

I think that there should be a look at the historical context and processes in this. When everything was done by hand like copying a book, it wasn't done to make thousands of copies for personal gain. Otoh, there were cases of books being chained to shelves so that they couldn't be stolen because someone might very well want to take it to sell to another, and that *is* stealing. In "copying" a piece of art, the individual had an effect on the talent and ability; it was still a personal work. Also, artists or scribes were paided for their work in some way or another (patronage for example). And in general there weren't authors and songwriters and such doing that to make a living as has been done for the last 3 centuries or so.

So this is not the same kind of situation as it was 1000 years ago. The person who wrote down "Beowulf" in manuscript wasn't doing to for a living. But Charles Dickens or Edgar Allen Poe or Rudyard Kipling or Mary Wollstonecraft or Mrs. Gaskell or thousands of others have and do today have this as their work to support themselves and their families in whole or in part. Same thing with someone who makes a recording or a movie. They have done work and "a working man is worthy of his hire".

Just because another person wants something doesn't make it a good reason to take/copy/etc.

Just to show that I am not entirely unbiased in this, I have friends who make part of their living as authors and I myself have made a couple of songs that were popular in some Medievalist recreation groups and when people made recordings of them or printed them in a song book they were kind enough to ask my permission and send me a copy. A person creates something that other people like and that's good. But consideration of a living author/composer/performer is also good

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Did Matthew and Luke commit theft in basing their Gospels on that of Mark?

Peace.

They did not take the Gospel of Mark, and sell it for personal gain nor claim that Mark was their work. They were drawing on the material and adding things that they knew. One wonders of a scene of Mark saying something like "Here guys. These are what I remember. What can you add?" or something like that.

A writer drawing on older material is not the same as plagerizing and claiming it for your own. This is not a simple area.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I think that there should be a look at the historical context and processes in this. When everything was done by hand like copying a book, it wasn't done to make thousands of copies for personal gain.

Of course it was. Haven't you read Martial? With the help of slaves, literature was widely copied and distributed in the Roman Empire, and the authors didn't object at all, as long as their name stayed on the title page.

Of course it was. Haven't you read Martial? With the help of slaves, literature was widely copied and distributed in the Roman Empire, and the authors didn't object at all, as long as their name stayed on the title page.

Could you please provide a citation to the relevent passage from Martial? thank you.

How is this to be compared, hand written copies to in a time when many people were not literate, to now when people pirate first run movies and dupe them thousands and thousands of times over to sell for personal gain?

Then there's such things as someone who had slaves to copy probably was well off enough that writing wasn't done to survive. Or was that duplication done with the knowledge of the authors while modern reproduction is not and therefor lacks any permission or agreement?

Copyright has gotten complicated with the extending of the time (thanks due to corporations, I'm told, not individual writers and artists and performers) that a work is covered.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Could you please provide a citation to the relevent passage from Martial? thank you.

I will when I reach Helsinki. I've still got another 14 hours to wait here in Vienna airport. Still, if you have access to the Loeb, you can probably find the verses in question fairly easily, as Martial's oeuvre isn't that big.

Quote

How is this to be compared, hand written copies to in a time when many people were not literate, to now when people pirate first run movies and dupe them thousands and thousands of times over to sell for personal gain?

Copies made in the Roman Empire were sold for personal gain, with no royalties going to the author.

Quote

Then there's such things as someone who had slaves to copy probably was well off enough that writing wasn't done to survive.

Of course, patronage was a factor. The matter at hand is whether it is appropriate for someone to suddenly claim a right to make money off of something, art, that was freely redistributable throughout most of the Christian era.

Quote

Or was that duplication done with the knowledge of the authors while modern reproduction is not and therefor lacks any permission or agreement?

Copying in the Roman Empire was done without the knowledge of the authors. In Martial's case, it was people transcribing his poetry at readings, and then going off to have said transcription mass-produced. The authors simply didn't see the need to grant permission, for it was obvious that they could claim no rights over the work once uttered. The only thing that irked Martial was when someone copied his work with someone else's name on it.

One should also consider that copyright is a purely Western invention, while Orthodox countries still consider it ridiculous. Just look at the attitude towards media in Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. And though one might want to attribute this to Communism, it's clear that it is merely a continuation of traditional thinking on the matter, for copying of works went on before 1917 just as now.

the authors didn't object at all, as long as their name stayed on the title page

Ah, so you are now admitting that people weren't too happy about theft of intellectual property in ancient times, either. Most excellent. Now if only we could get certain Christians to stop rationalizing such theft.

Ah, so you are now admitting that people weren't too happy about theft of intellectual property in ancient times, either. Most excellent. Now if only we could get certain Christians to stop rationalizing such theft.

I said no such thing. Living in academia I frequently hear admonitions against plagiarism, but never with terminology like "theft". It's an entirely separate issue.

Copies made in the Roman Empire were sold for personal gain, with no royalties going to the author.

Well, since the concept of royalties didn't exist then, that I know of, that is not surprising.

Quote

Of course, patronage was a factor. The matter at hand is whether it is appropriate for someone to suddenly claim a right to make money off of something, art, that was freely redistributable throughout most of the Christian era.

Well, I can think of several things on that. 1) the idea of people actually *making a living* through art but not as an employee (tomb painters in Ancient Egypt for example) or with a patron (lots of places) is not that old, I don't think. The rise of entertainment reading came as more people became literate. It was when education was made law in England so that more people could read AND the industrial revolution that made cheap paper available that there came to be more people who were professional writers, people who all or most of what they did for a living was writing (Dickens, Trollope, etc). There's also the advent of more leisure time, with some people not having to do as much to have the basics of life but I'll chase Thorstein Veblen back into the woodwork.

Also, the slaves you mentioned doing the copying still had to be fed and housed and given ink and parchment and taught how to write, so "free" is not quite accurate, I don't think, meaning no disrespect. The seller was making back some investment, may be.

2) the idea of people having "rights" was also a more recent developement from such people as John Locke and others.

3) A performer in ancient times expected *some* kind of return for entertaining: food, lodging, a coin or gift. They were providing something, intangible though it might be, and given something as payment. But there were no methods of recording then, each performance was unique. Now with recordings and net music we can have a private performance of music any time we may wish it and as many times as we want. By someone buying a record, a tape, a CD or songfile, they are in some way paying the performer and (if they listen to it alot, it's cheap on a cost per playing rate.)

4) Someone has created something that would not exist except by their efforts. They have done work to make something tangible or intangible. Again, I will quote "A working man is worthy of his hire." How is it wrong for someone to say "I'd like recompense for what I have done." ? How is that different from a skilled artisan who made something and was paid to do it?

Quote

Copying in the Roman Empire was done without the knowledge of the authors. In Martial's case, it was people transcribing his poetry at readings, and then going off to have said transcription mass-produced. The authors simply didn't see the need to grant permission, for it was obvious that they could claim no rights over the work once uttered. The only thing that irked Martial was when someone copied his work with someone else's name on it.

I can understand that. A song that a friend and I wrote was attributed to another lyricist (I do the tunes). I wrote and gave the correct information and all was well. I wonder though at "obvious". If there was no structure to claim intellectual property rights, there would be no way to make any such claim.

Quote

One should also consider that copyright is a purely Western invention, while Orthodox countries still consider it ridiculous. Just look at the attitude towards media in Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. And though one might want to attribute this to Communism, it's clear that it is merely a continuation of traditional thinking on the matter, for copying of works went on before 1917 just as now.

Well *why* is it "ridiculous"? It is a case of "thoughts are free" or "We want this so we can take it and make money off of others?" or some other idea?

There is also a wide field of what sharing/copying is. It could be one person's "This is great, I need to share it with others who don't know about it." Or "I want this music, but I don't want to pay for it." or "I want money, so I'll take something that someone else worked and slaved over and make many many copies with technology (which is new too, compared to, say, Martial) and sell them for my own gain." And I could probably think of others, but I have to go write something else.

with respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Ah, so you are now admitting that people weren't too happy about theft of intellectual property in ancient times, either. Most excellent. Now if only we could get certain Christians to stop rationalizing such theft.

As a writer, I'd be more than happy if people made copies of my articles for redistributation, provided that they credit me for my work. I don't see why musicians who believe in their music wouldn't feel the same way. Art is meant to be shared and enjoyed, not profited from. If Jay-Z is already a multimillionaire, I think he could afford to let me download "Hard Knock Life" off Limewire. I burn a copy of every good CD that I check out at the library, and I feel no shame in it.

Art is meant to be shared and enjoyed, not profited from. If Jay-Z is already a multimillionaire, I think he could afford to let me download "Hard Knock Life" off Limewire. I burn a copy of every good CD that I check out at the library, and I feel no shame in it.

Ebor has said "When everything was done by hand like copying a book, it wasn't done to make thousands of copies for personal gain." However, this does not translate to the modern issue of filesharing. In that, no personal gain is made, rather the file is traded for free.

Ebor also said "They did not take the Gospel of Mark, and sell it for personal gain nor claim that Mark was their work." This also does not seem a relevant complaint. As mentioned filesharing does not equate to personal gain for the person distributing the file, and in all instances I am familiar with the works available via P2P are not claimed by others as their work. That would seem more to do with plagiarism, which is not an issue in filesharing really, or artist sampling, which is done by the "artists" themselves. If you do a torrent search you will find many copyrighted works copied and available for download, but they are listed as the works by the people who were originally credited. Britney Spears songs are in fact labelled as Britney Spears songs, and are still unlistenable trash.

Now, as I see it, most music is so lousy I wouldn't bother to download it, or certainly buy it. I don't even listen to the radio, which is still free in some places. I own, completely legally and at massive expense I might add, something like 1000 Frank Sinatra songs and that gets me through just fine. And movies are worse than music. But, I have to say that this whole filesharing is stealing thing bugs me a bit. It just goes too far. How much should be protected in this way? Right now you cannot even legally copy your own DVDs to watch on other devices in other formats. That is silly. That would be like saying that if you buy a pice of art to hang on your wall you have to pay if you take family pictures in front of it for your Christmas cards.

Another aspect of this is to consider what isn't protected. Who isn't "worthy of their hire?" If you use pandora.com, one of the best online sites available, you cannot skip but so many songs, or rewind at all, as that is "listen on demand" and requires much more money to the "artists." However, anyone can go to the library, a publically funded institution, and borrow any book you want and read it, all to avoid buying a copy. Is Stephen King somehow less deserving of his pay than Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan? If we really believe that being able to listen to a song or see a movie is "stealing" then so is borrowing from the library. In both cases only one copy is purchased and then is made available to all others in an unlimited way. The only real difference is that one is the written word, and therefore of some actual value, and is made available by the very government that threatens to imprison people for downloading from the internet.

Even until the mid 90's American copyright law was quite reasonable, copyright violation was only illegal if one made a profit off it. Today it is simply out of control, to the point where it is infringing on the free flow of information, or at least would if enforced: fortunately technology is outpacing law so quickly that the feds are unable to effectively enforce their oppressive legislation.

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

I haven't added any tags on this thread, but fwiw I wouldn't even try to defend my position (other than in a jocular manner) on a thread like this.

Well, ultimately these debates won't go anywhere...heck, it's already illegal but many of us, as a matter of principle, will take the risks and spend our money to keep information free, MPAA and RIAA be damned (mind you, I fight them even though I rarely download anything these organizations seek to protect, the music and movies they put out are crap, but if one wants to, they should still be free to access the information).

Well, ultimately these debates won't go anywhere...heck, it's already illegal but many of us, as a matter of principle, will take the risks and spend our money to keep information free, MPAA and RIAA be damned (mind you, I fight them even though I rarely download anything these organizations seek to protect, the music and movies they put out are crap, but if one wants to, they should still be free to access the information).

My college has no official policy against fileshsaring, so it's odd that our firewall would prevent downloading from P2P networks. This seems like an attempt to save bandwidth. But with Ares Galaxy, I've made all things right again! Let's hear some David Bowie!

My college has no official policy against fileshsaring, so it's odd that its firewall would prevent downloading from P2P networks. This seems like an attempt to save bandwidth. But with Ares Galaxy, I've made all things right again! Let's hear some David Bowie!

That's the only reason anyone cares, same with porn, it's all about bandwidth. The internet is above moral qualms, but the pragmatic economics of bandwidth has yet to be overcome.

As a writer, I'd be more than happy if people made copies of my articles for redistributation, provided that they credit me for my work.

And that is fine for *you*. However, do you make your living on your writing at this time? What of a future possibility where you support yourself and maybe a family with your writing.

Quote

I don't see why musicians who believe in their music wouldn't feel the same way. Art is meant to be shared and enjoyed, not profited from.

And musicians still need to eat and have shelter and get replacement guitar strings or music paper or whatever. You cannot seem to comprehend nor have empathy with others who think differently then you do. Do you have any knowledge of just how little performers or writers make when they're not "Big names"? I know some and how they live. They write or make music both for the love of it and to live to make more.

If the traveling minstrels, or stone carvers or actors didn't get fed and clothed eventually there would be no more minstrels, or songs or art.

If you enjoy a song or a performance or a book, which another human has created for others to enjoy or learn from or experience, why should they not have some kind of recompense? If they should say "please don't just copy and take what I've made." will your desires trump their possible needs? Why so?

Quote

If Jay-Z is already a multimillionaire, I think he could afford to let me download "Hard Knock Life" off Limewire.

And who are *you* to decide what another human could or should do? How do you know what someone else can afford or what he/she may do with what they gain from their labours? Will you allow someone to tell you that just because they want something of yours that it's ok to take it?

Quote

I burn a copy of every good CD that I check out at the library, and I feel no shame in it.

Are they out of print? unavailable for home use? Would you pay for a live performance or think it acceptable to sneak in because you like the music but don't want to pay the ticket price?

For the record, I have not added any tags to this thread either.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis